 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| State v. McDermott, No. 6-945 / 05-1557,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA, April 11, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was sufficient to sustain defendant's drug possession convictions, Iowa Code § 124.401, because the jury could have found that defendant had a proprietary interest in or an immediate right to control the contents of a purse, including bags of marijuana and methamphetamine found in the purse, as her driver's license was found in the purse.
|
|||||
| State v. Milligan, No. 7-158 / 06-1737,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA, April 11, 2007
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a driving while barred as a habitual offender case, Iowa Code § 321.561, in sentencing defendant to 60 days in jail and a fine, trial court considered his prior criminal record, which included a prior conviction of driving while barred, and the need to deter further offenses. Thus, there was no abuse of discretion, and his sentence was affirmed.
|
|||||
| State v. Morehead, No. 7-143 / 06-0884,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA, April 11, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss six forgery charges where the absence of an alleged key witness from the country justified a continuance beyond the expiration of the one-year period set forth in Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.33(2)(c).
|
|||||
| State v. Newell, No. 7-071 / 06-0528,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA, April 11, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Indecent exposure conviction was reversed because the State did not prove that the store employee was offended by defendant's sex act, when the store employee's decision to record defendant's license plate number did not amount to substantial evidence supporting the finding that the store employee was offended by defendant's sex act.
|
|||||
| State v. Rich, No. 7-146 / 06-0990,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA, April 11, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant failed to show that he was prejudiced by his attorney's failure to request a verbatim record of plea proceedings where defendant was aware of, yet waived all requirements of Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.8(2). The written plea tracked the language of rule and informed defendant of consequences of failure to file timely motion in arrest of judgment.
|
|||||
| State v. Vichit, No. 6-1062 / 06-0382,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA, April 11, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conviction of conspiracy to deliver more than five grams of methamphetamine under Iowa Code § 124.401(1)(b)(7) was affirmed because a reasonable fact finder could have credited the homeowners' testimony that defendant was the supplier of the methamphetamine, and the accomplice testimony was corroborated by several pieces of evidence.
|
|||||
| State v. Winters, No. 7-137 / 06-0535,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA, April 11, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for possession of a controlled substance under Iowa Code § 124.401(5) because (1) the marijuana was found in the pocket of defendant's shirt; and (2) the possession of the marijuana, on defendant's person, in a format ready to be used, supported the three elements necessary for a conviction.
|
|||||
| Young v. State, No. 7-150 / 06-1287,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA, April 11, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court erred in granting appellee postconviction relief on the ground that he had not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to a jury trial where the in-court colloquy with appellee was sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.17(1) pursuant to the applicable law at the time of the waiver.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
